HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-26 MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A special meeting of the Fayetteville .Board of Directors was held
on Wednesday, February 26, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 326 of City Hall,
113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster,
Martin and Orton; City Manager Grimes, Acting City
Manager Murphy, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy,
members of the press and others
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order with seven Directors present.
The Mayor stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss with
Grimes and Murphy the procedures used to interview and hire the three
new department heads. The Mayor asked if the Board wished to proceed
in open session.
•
Director Johnson suggested the Board hear the procedures in open session
and then go into Executive Session to discuss Public Works Director
Deryl Burch specifically.
Murphy explained that advertisement for the positions began in December,
resumes were reviewed by him, in early January resumes were reviewed
by Grimes and narrowed down to five to seven candidates in each category.
Murphy stated he reviewed recommendations by Grimes and added his
own comments. Murphy explained that a meeting was to be scheduled
for the Board Personnel Committee to review the resumes but a decision
was made for him and Grimes to make the final selections. Murphy
stated that he and Grimes met on January 27 to narrow the selections
down to three candidates for each position, and on January 28 began
interviewing candidates.
Murphy stated interviews were approximately one hour in length. Murphy
stated that, after each interview, he and Grimes discussed the candidates.
Murphy added that there were a lot of biases and prejudices on both
sides but that he and Grimes agreed to "throw those out and work as
closely as we could...". Murphy statedthey agreed on the final selec-
tions, that he then checked references and, upon satisfaction with
the references, the job offers were made.
Grimes agreed with Murphy's summary and stated he felt the process
had been "done by the book" and in the best interests of the City.
Grimes stated his personal opinion was that the candidates, while
they need to be knowledgeable in .their specific areas, will be working
with and must be able to relate to people "from the top on down".
Grimes stated he did not over -emphasize specialty areas, feeling that.
the department heads must be "people -oriented".
63.1
63.2
63.3
63.4
63.5
63.6
64.
64.1
February 26, 1986
In answer to a question from Director. Hess, Murphy reported there
were approximately 20 candidates for Public Works Director, 32-33
for Public Safety Director, and 40-43 for Administrative Services
Director. Murphy explained these were narrowed down to 5-7 candidates,
then finally narrowed down to 3 candidates. Grimes remarked that
the educational background of the applicants ranged from those with
no degree to those with Ph.D.'s.
64.2 Murphy described how the interviews were conducted and summarized
those questions asked of the applicants. Murphy stated that Grimes
discussed his operating philosophy with the applicants, and talked
with them about other issues such as salary needs and fringe benefits..
Murphy stated that the organizational changes were covered extensively
during the interviews. Murphy added that, after considerable discussion
with the Board, he felt it important for Grimes to have a great deal
of input in the selection, because "the reality was that if Grimes
didn't feel comfortable with the individuals selected, it would not
work in the long run."
64.3 Bumpass asked if the "biases and prejudices" referred to educational
background, experience and philosophies of the applicants. Murphy
and Grimes agreed that, if they had any differences, they were philo-
sophical.
64.4 Noland asked if references were checked beyond those provided by the
applicants. Murphy stated that he also made "internal checks", and
contacted persons who did not know the applicant personally but knew
them professionally. In reference to Deryl Burch, Murphy stated the
general picture he received was that Burch was a "low key individual
who got the job done". Noland remarked that most applicants can find
five people they can be sure will give a good reference.
64.5 In answer to a question from Director Martin, Grimes stated he felt
strongly about his intuition about the candidates.
64.6 Director Johnson asked Murphy and Grimes: "Given all the .things that
you know now, do you feel that you selected the best three candidates?"
Grimes stated, in looking at the total picture, he would respond affir-
matively. Murphy agreed.
`64.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion the Board meet
in executive session to discuss Deryl Burch. Upon roll call, the
motion passed, 6-1, with Director Hess voting in the minority.
,64.8
•
The Board met in executive session from about 5:30 to about 6:30 p.m.
64.9 Following the executive session, Mayor Noland announced that the Board
came to the decision that the selection of the Public Works Director
was the sole responsibility of the City Manager and the Acting City
Manager, and that it was the way it is supposed to operate.
February 26, 1986
Director Johnson made a motion that the Board approve a resolution,
which she read as follows:
1. That we accept Deryl Burch as the Public Works Director,
based on the explanation of procedures used and recommendations
made by the City Manager and the Acting City Manager.
2. That the three department directors be placed on a six-month
probationary period, as per personnel policy.
3. That measurable goals and objectives for one year be established
between the City Manager and/or Acting City Manager and
department directors, those goals be approved by the Board
of Directors, progress be reviewed in four months and again
in six months by the Manager and reported to the Board.
The motion was seconded by Director Martin. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 28-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 331 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK )(XIII
In answer to a question from a member of the press, Director Johnson
stated that all new employees, except those in the Police and Fire
Departments, are subjected to a six-month probationary period.
It was clarified that one-year goals and objectives are already required
by the reorganization. Director Lancaster added that the four-month
progress review has not been city policy. Director Orton explained
that the four-month time period was chosen because it would fall at
a time when the City Manager and Acting City Manager will be working
together for the City.
It was clarified that there would be a report to the Board at the
end of four months and at the end of six months.
With no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at about 6:40 p.m.
1'5
65.1
65.2
65.3
65.4
65.5
65.6